Posted
by
Soulskill
on Sunday January 17, 2016 @02:29AM
from the fodder-for-the-campaign-trail dept.

An anonymous reader writes: Iran has shipped most of its nuclear fuel out of the country, destroyed the innards of a plutonium-producing reactor and mothballed more than 12,000 centrifuges. This compliance with the nuclear accord struck in July has caused the U.S. and Europe to lift financial sanctions on Iran, releasing ~$100 billion in assets. "Under the new rules put in place, the United States will no longer sanction foreign individuals or firms for buying oil and gas from Iran. The American trade embargo remains in place, but the government will permit certain limited business activities with Iran, such as selling or purchasing Iranian food and carpets and American commercial aircraft and parts. It is an opening to Iran that represents a huge roll of the dice, one that will be debated long after Mr. Obama he has built his presidential library. It is unclear what will happen after the passing of Iran's Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who has protected and often fueled the hardliners — but permitted these talks to go ahead."

During election time, if Israel doesn't like it, then expect every candidate to dance for Israeli money.

About 20% (> $500 million) of the $3.15 billion that flows into Israel as military defense aid, flows back into US politics via commercial conduits (Israeli/US companies that receive lucrative government contracts, whose US subsidiary in turns drives US politics directly and indirectly.

So a large part of this election cycle will be dominated by pro-Israel lobbies.

It's insane that a tiny client state, that's not even in the G20, can have this sort of influence. Not that you can blame them for trying. How do so called 'constitutionalists' square this with their ideals? The 'one-dollar-one-vote' system in the US makes its democracy a running joke. If it were any other nation, it would be referred to as wide-scale, systemic corruption. Except the corruption has been legalized, and is by definition no longer corruption.

It's insane that a tiny client state, that's not even in the G20, can have this sort of influence.

No, it's insane that some people still don't understand that it's the entire middle east, as a region, that is influential because of its geography (which includes key shipping routes) and its oil deposits. The fact that Israel is the closest thing to a rational actor in the entire region is what makes supporting its existence appropriate. Would we support Denmark in a similar fashion if every country around it was wallowing in medieval theocracy, swearing to destroy it, lobbing missiles at it every day fo

The voters do not select the president, so while what you say is technically true, all you're doing with that vote is stating your preference. Consequently, it is not really a vote.

It is the hatred for Israel that is insane.

It's not really that crazy. The Jews' own holy books explain why everyone hates them. They were a racial minority that invaded a region which had already been hotly contested basically for all recorded history, put the men and mothers to the sword, and took the virgins as wives. They got kicked out of that region eventually by force, and then the UK came up with a snazzy plan to keep the muzzies down by reinstalling the jews in a place they'd already been driven out of. The UK was clever enough to distance itself from the plan by the time it was implemented, but the US went for it, and now we are funding another Yahweh-related genocide in the region, which is why all the people who hate the Jews hate us too. Which part of this is unclear?

I'm not saying that "THE JEWS" are evil or don't have a right to exist, but I am saying that the nation-state of Israel is a deliberate evil that is being perpetrated not just upon the "Palestinians" but also against the world. Israel is a military theocracy, one of the most dangerous types of institution that our world has ever created, and people cheer it on in the name of religious freedom and respect of other cultures, as if anything could be more ironic. There's nothing anti-Semitic about being anti-Zionist. The idea that people have a right to a particular place because of religious beliefs is poppycock, and the Jews were a racial minority that came late to the region and there's no particular reason to believe that they're more entitled to it than anyone else.

It's not really that crazy. The Jews' own holy books explain why everyone hates them. They were a racial minority that invaded a region which had already been hotly contested basically for all recorded history, put the men and mothers to the sword, and took the virgins as wives.

Definitely accurate, but worth noting that this sort of behavior was pretty par for the course in ancient times. The only difference here is that this a group in question that ended up surviving in some form to the modern age with their own personal history intact.

They got kicked out of that region eventually by force, and then the UK came up with a snazzy plan to keep the muzzies down by reinstalling the jews in a place they'd already been driven out of.

This is a vast oversimplification. First, there was no intent to "keep the muzzies down" but rather to deal with an ongoing situation. In particular, there had been a small Jewish population in various parts of the land since the Roman times (such as around Safed) and there had been systematic return to the land since the 1800s with a large Jewish population by the 1920s and a very large population post World War II. The plan in question was then to partition the land between two states https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Partition_Plan_for_Palestine [wikipedia.org] which the Jews accepted and the Palestinian Arabs by and large rejected.

This is a vast oversimplification. First, there was no intent to "keep the muzzies down" but rather to deal with an ongoing situation.

What's the difference?

The plan in question was then to partition the land between two states https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org] which the Jews accepted and the Palestinian Arabs by and large rejected.

Yeah, everyone including T.E. Lawrence noted that it would plunge the region right back into war, and guess what? Since everyone knew that's what the result would be, it's difficult to suggest that the creation of Israel was anything other than a deliberate effort to create essentially the political situation that we see today.

I'll readily admit I don't have any easy answers to questions like how could the Jews have been protected from further persecution without handing them a piece o

This is a vast oversimplification. First, there was no intent to "keep the muzzies down" but rather to deal with an ongoing situation.

What's the difference?

Well, for one, many of the Palestinian Arabs at the time were Christian. For another, there's a massive difference between trying to keep a specific group down and trying to come up with a solution that doesn't result in massive genocide.

They got kicked out of that region eventually by force, and then the UK came up with a snazzy plan to keep the muzzies down by reinstalling the jews in a place they'd already been driven out of.

This is a vast oversimplification. First, there was no intent to "keep the muzzies down" but rather to deal with an ongoing situation. In particular, there had been a small Jewish population in various parts of the land since the Roman times (such as around Safed) and there had been systematic return to the land since the 1800s with a large Jewish population by the 1920s and a very large population post World War II.

A small continuous population, that doesn't give them the right to a self-governing state in that territory any more than it does small minorities in other states.

Land claims from well over 1000+ years ago notwithstanding.

And the Jewish immigration was part of a specific plan to create a Jewish homeland. The massive Jewish immigration between 1920 and 1949 was during the Mandate when the British were in change and the local Arab population was unable to manage immigration.

Of course the Palestinian Arabs disagreed. A different ethnic group declares they're going to start colonizing your territory to create their own state, they then proceed to do so while you're under foreign occupation by states who generally side with the other ethnic group.

The foreign occupiers then propose to give the other group a state with most of the land even though you still have a bigger population. Is this a proposal you're going to agree to?

A small continuous population, that doesn't give them the right to a self-governing state in that territory any more than it does small minorities in other states.
Land claims from well over 1000+ years ago notwithstanding.

Essentially in agreement here. We cannot in general let ancient land claims determine legitimacy of nations and national borders. That sort of thing leads to complete chaos and many dead.

Of course the Palestinian Arabs disagreed. A different ethnic group declares they're going to start colonizing your territory to create their own state, they then proceed to do so while you're under foreign occupation by states who generally side with the other ethnic group.
The foreign occupiers then propose to give the other group a state with most of the land even though you still have a bigger population. Is this a proposal you're going to agree to?

This is an oversimplification, although I think it does do a pretty good job of summarizing the Palestinian Arab perspective on things. One of the difficulties here is that every group has a narrative that emphasizes some aspects and details to make them sound like the aggrieved good guys. Note that while there was no nativ

This is an oversimplification, although I think it does do a pretty good job of summarizing the Palestinian Arab perspective on things. One of the difficulties here is that every group has a narrative that emphasizes some aspects and details to make them sound like the aggrieved good guys. Note that while there was no native government to control immigration, the Jews going to Mandate Palestine were buying and settling land completely legally.

What if those Jewish immigrants declared they were going to buy up land in New York instead, and once they got enough people there they would declare their own state. And with a UN endorsement they did so until the UN announced a partition granting Manhattan to the new Jewish state.

Do you think that would have gone over well? Would the mass immigration have gone ahead if the US government was in charge of US territory and able to declare that the plan would not succeed? Imagine if it were Arabs instead of J

What if those Jewish immigrants declared they were going to buy up land in New York instead, and once they got enough people there they would declare their own state. And with a UN endorsement they did so until the UN announced a partition granting Manhattan to the new Jewish state.

This is viciously ironic given how the land rights for the island of Manhattan were acquired from the native Americans.

A small continuous population, that doesn't give them the right to a self-governing state in that territory any more than it does small minorities in other states.

Land claims from well over 1000+ years ago notwithstanding.

The Jewish people have lived in the land of Israel for at least 3,300 years and have hand multiple self-governing states in that land. They don't have "land clams from well over 1000+ years ago," they have had a continuous claim for thousands of years. Invading powers have prevented them from reestablishing their state until 70 year ago.

Being a small minority doesn't mean you get to own the land, and old land claims go away after a few hundred years, much less 1000+.

Can you offer any other groups who ruled a territory over 1000 years ago whom you think have a better claim to the land than its current owners?

And the Jewish immigration was part of a specific plan to create a Jewish homeland. The massive Jewish immigration between 1920 and 1949 was during the Mandate when the British were in change and the local Arab population was unable to manage immigration.

First, Jews had been returning to the land of Israel since at least the 1880s, and the wider population still had ties to their homeland.

They were not so much trying to "create a Jewish homeland" as rebuild it. They have had to do the same thing more than once as invading powers through history have taken away the Israelis only for them to return home later.

And that return to Israel was Zionism, part of the explicit plan I referred to.

And it wasn't their homeland, it was the homeland of their ancient ancestors, who probably took it from someone else's ancient ancestors. Some of those invad

Israel has no official religion, and its demographics include a 16% Muslim population and a 20% secular (atheist) Jewish population. It's hardly a theocracy with over a third of voters not identifying as Jewish (religion-wise) -- America is predominantly Christian and fits the bill a bit better than Israel.

However, I do agree that it was a huge time bomb to plant the Jews in the heart of the middle eastern holy lands surrounded by Muslim nations. But, that was intentional. Christians NEED Israel to exist so that the temple can be rebuilt as a harbinger for the apocalypse. Christians have a vested interest in keeping Israel around because the New Testament's end-times prophesies mention its existence. That's why the Republicans (largely evangelicals) strongly support Israel. It's not about the money or the oil in the region (we use Saudi Arabia, Egypt,and others for that). It's all about keeping the holy land in Jewish hands as a self-fulfilling prophesy of the Bible.

Israel is an ethnocracy [ipk-bonn.de], not a theocracy. It's been created by eastern european Jews, and ethnocracies weren't considered that special then.Israel has citizens and nationals. The Israeli nationals are Jews. The state is for the nationals, not for the citizens. If there are too many nonjewish citizens this is a threat to the jewish state and the jewish state may take draconian measures to handle this threat if needed.The US is a state of its citizens, it's a completely different concept. There is no distinction between citizen and national.

Until their elected representatives step over the line as defined by their bat-shit crazy right wing. Then, they revert to violence [wikipedia.org]. And elect a series of militant [wikipedia.org] troublemakers [wikipedia.org] just to pacify that right wing.

It's not really a democracy if they say, "Go ahead and vote. But vote for something we don't like and we will kill you."

No, if you're going to give them a country, the obvious answer would have been to take land that wasn't hotly contested and give it to them, instead of choosing land that is considered holy by three major world religions. We could have given them part of the US or Canada, it's not like the Western Plains are particularly populous.

Influencing elections by urging people to vote one way or another isn't buying votes. If it was, then all advocacy groups - like, say, NOW or Lambda Legal - would be just as guilty. Influencing legislation isn't buying votes either; it's helpful to their interests, sure, but any group of people should be able to tell a legislator what they think should be changed about legislation, proposed or otherwise.

Using money to get a desired outcome isn't buying if the person who is doing what you want doesn't get the money. If I buy groceries, I have to pay money to the people who own them now - I'm not paying someone else and waiting to see if someone decides to give me groceries. As it stands, companies buy ad time, which may or may not convince someone to vote a certain way. "Buying" would require that they pay people to vote how the company wants them to. Currently, they don't buy votes (amongst the general pop

Buying,A, it may not be direct, but it is the intentB, if there is no benefit, at least most of the time, why do they do it? if there is no profit, why do it?

Advocacy groups, etc, yes, quite. But corporate money should not be involved, at the very least. For any.

Impairment, I hear you, but if I and a hundred thousand of my closest friends were all to write my senator or congressperson and say "we are opposed/favor legistation 'x'" but company blah is on the opposing side, but contributed to that politici

Oh, they definitely spend the money with the intent of convincing people to vote one way or another, sure. But that is, and should be, entirely legal. Convincing people via speech to vote for or against something is fine; the money they spend gets them a larger audience. They do probably benefit from it, but that's not necessarily a bad thing.

A lot of advocacy groups are corporations, albeit nonprofit ones. Hell, the ACLU is a nonprofit corporation.

Same old hasbara lies eh, the world doesn't believe you any more shill boy. The current Israelis are from Eurpoe, and simple thieves and murderers. I'm in no way anti-Semitic, I'm anti asshole. It's the normal typical wolf cry of a thouroughly discredited bunch of muderous theiving liars to make that claim.Besides not all Semites are Israeli you know, oh that's right, your in the process of trying to ethnically cleanse themPure lying scum, founded by lies and terrorism, supported by corrupt US politi

The current Israelis are from Eurpoe, and simple thieves and murderers. I'm in no way anti-Semitic, I'm anti asshole. It's the normal typical wolf cry of a thouroughly discredited bunch of muderous theiving liars to make that claim.

You're "anti asshole"? How do you live with yourself? Well, at least we have it on your authority that you are, "in no way anti-Semitic." @@. Israeli Jews, by Region of Origin [jewishvirtuallibrary.org]

Israel fell into joyous celebration tonight as the Government announced the successful conclusion of an emergency airlift of 14,500 Ethiopian Jews, nearly the entire Jewish population, in just under 36 hours.

At the airport this morning, it was difficult to tell who was more joyful -- the barefoot Ethiopians who cheered, ululated and bent down to kiss the tarmac as they stepped off the planes, or the Israelis who watched them aglow, marveling at this powerful image showing that their state still holds appeal, even with all its problems.

"We've stood up to our obligation and completed the operation bringing all the Jews," Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir declared tonight. "It gives us a feeling of strength."

Israelis were no less wondrous at the operational accomplishment of ferrying so many people more than 1,500 miles in 40 flights over so short a time. The air force said 35 civilian and military airplanes, including one Ethiopian airliner, had been used in the operation.

In a key address before the Political Committee of the U.N. General Assembly on November 14, 1947, just five days before that body voted on the partition plan for Palestine, Heykal Pasha, an Egyptian delegate, made the following key statement in connection with that plan:

The United Nations . . . should not lose sight of the fact that the proposed solution might endanger a million Jews living in the Moslem countries. Partition of Palestine might create in those countries an anti-Semitism even more difficult to root out than the anti-Semitism which the Allies were trying to eradicate in Germany. . . If the United Nations decides to partition Palestine, it might be responsible for the massacre of a large number of Jews.

Heykal Pasha then elaborated on his threat:

A million Jews live in peace in Egypt [and other Muslim countries] and enjoy all rights of citizenship. They have no desire to emigrate to Palestine. However, if a Jewish State were established, nobody could prevent disorders. Riots would break out in Palestine, would spread through all the Arab states and might lead to a war between two races.1

Heykal Pasha's thinly veiled threats of "grave disorders," "massacre," "riots," and "war between two races" did not at the time go unnoticed by Jews;2 for them, it had the same ring as the proposition made six years earlier by the Palestinian leader Hajj Amin al-Husayni to Hitler of a "final solution" for the Jews of Arab countries, including Palestine. ... "3 . . . more [meforum.org]

Although much is heard about the plight of the Palestinian refugees from the aftermath of the 1948 Israeli War of Independence and the 1967 Six Day War, little is said about the hundreds of thousands of Jews who were forced to flee from Arab states before and after the creation of Israel. In fact, these refugees were largely forgotten because they were assimilated into their new homes, most in Israel, and neither the United Nations nor any other international agency took up their cause or demanded restitution for the property and money taken from them.... more [jewishvirtuallibrary.org]

LMAO, from the well known impartial Jewish propaganda website.I can tell you this Cold Dumbfuck, I was born in 1960.For the first 20 years of my life I supported Isreals right to exist.Slowly but surely the pattern of ethnic cleansing, and outright repeated murder of civilians, the assassinations in other countries by Mossad, followed by research into the history of the formation of Israel by the UN (who had No right to do so ).I learned that the first tactic of Hasbara is to accuse anyone who critics Isra

Hasbara is an Hebrew word defined as explanation. The purpose of Hasbara is to explain and educate western people about the Israeli mission. Hasbara can take many forms, adverts, websites, comments on blogs, letter writing, protests and so on. For a fuller idea of the depth of Hasbara check this tool-kit from the We Believe in Israel Website. (made by BICOM). The difference between propaganda and hasbara? I would say Hasbara is more of a soft sell at first, it seeks to inform, influence and educate the igno

Supreme point of viewThe Hasbara troll knows bestCondescending & PatronisingSocialist (Smart and ‘caring’)Do not have to be Jewish but Pro-IsraelInternet expertsNarcissisticProvocativeDis-ruptiveLike to ask the questions, not answer questionsControl freaksInflamed by anyone being critical of Israel‘Moral’ GuardiansClassic insults: Anti-semite, Neo- Nazi, White Supremacist, Holocaust denierAdept with social networks well trained on ITHasbara trolls use inte

Hasbara Trolls are generally quite polite at first. They pop up when someone is critical of Israel and it’s policies or interests. They target, write, engage, educate and insult. From my research it seems that there is some kind of hierarchy of trolls, they have leaders who tell them targets and guide them with their spin. Most work voluntarily but some are paid for by wealthy sponsors. They track topical keywords and persons using public websites such as topsy.com. Problems arise

Yep, I know all about the Stern gang and Irgun.Remember poor old Count Bernadotte, assassinated for trying to prevent Isreals ethnic cleansing.No materr how much the likes of cold turd spread the Habara, only shills like him believe it.

The Constitution requires that members of the House of Representatives to be chosen by the people of their state. Senators were originally selected by state legislators, but later to be elected by the people of their state. The President is elected by electors chosen from each state as the legislatures determine. As far as I can tell, those are the requirements the Constitution puts on voting.

There is no requirement there for any particular method of voting. There are a lot of things that have pretty

If you think that doesn't work you have to accept that is because the majority doesn't agree with you. It is that simple.

You're seriously making the argument that because a government acts in a certain way, its subjects agree with it? It's too easy to even make a current list of countries that don't fit that pattern, much less spend pages on historical counter-examples.

The simple calculus is that in that situation the citizens only dislike their governments' behavior less than they dislike their odds of dying in a revolution. Eventually that changes. cf. Nero's Rome

The fatal flaw in the cycle is that once the governments get abusive enough, and they either finally collapse of their own weight or the citizens revolt, then the people make the mistake of instituting another government (because that worked out so well last time...). There have been a few notable exceptions (e.g. China c. 100AD, Iceland c. 800AD) which have led to centuries of peaceful and productive societies.

You're seriously making the argument that because a government acts in a certain way, its subjects agree with it? It's too easy to even make a current list of countries that don't fit that pattern, much less spend pages on historical counter-examples.

Yep. Anyone who thinks all the Israelis want to abuse the Palestinians has to also think that all the Americans want to blow up babies, etc etc blah blah blah. Most of us are as much prisoners of our own governments as anyone else is. Most of us don't even realize it. If you're in a comfortable prison, what's the problem? Or so the logic seems to go.

No, I'm making the argument that not enough people disagree with the actions of the government which is not the same as agreeing. Some people won't even know about the actions and some simply will not care one way or another if they did. Add in the ones who do support the actions and you find yourself in a minority.

Now when you look at the amount of people who do not like the government or the direction it is moving in you will find union in mostly the sentiment but the reasons are all over the place. Some

During election time, if Israel doesn't like it, then expect every candidate to dance for Israeli money.

Well Israel won't like it, Qatar won't like it, Saudi Arabia won't like it. And you can bet that ever since Israel and Saudi Arabia signed a treaty basically becoming a military co-pact against Iran adhering and only if they prove it and they were lifted gradually, you can bet that shit will hit the fan.

Iranians may not call themselves democratic but they do want and have significant participation in the government and while a lot of people want the government to be less controlling and restrictive, that doesn't mean they want to get rid of the basic architecture of the state. It fits their nationalistic identity. It's their own and definitely not colonial. I also doubt there is a large body of people in Iran who think the religious council is too restrictive about who can run for president.

Good point, the U.S. is so backwards that the religious majority influence the democratic election of their leaders. Whereas conversion from Islam in Iran is punishable by death. It's exactly the same.

Worked for Keith Ellison, who represents me among other people. Or are you referring to the mythical states that restrict politicians based on religion? No such state has any elective offices anyway. Also, do you know what the Electoral College actually is?

" no sane investor on the free market would ever give the state of Israel" unless your loan is going to a cybersecurity program. Israel's cyberwar tech is some of the best on the planet; any investment in that should have a huge return.

That is certainly NOT a "purely political" story; although I can understand why someone would make that mistake. It's a story about the decline of technology in the United States caused by those who make money favoring secret actions by secret U.S. government organizations.

The NSA does not provide "Security". Instead, the secrecy makes everyone feel insecure. Anyone can claim that a secret organization did something destructive; that's an easy sale when a small group wants violence. Suppose an NSA manager wants a promotion. The manager can arrange something likely to cause violence; there is no outside review; new violence can be used as a reason for new authority.

Consider the Culture of fear [wikipedia.org]. Nazi leader Hermann Goring: "The people don't want war, but they can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. This is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and for exposing the country to danger. It works the same in every country."

Quote from that same Wikipedia page: 'Former US National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski argues that the use of the term War on Terror was intended to generate a culture of fear deliberately because it "obscures reason, intensifies emotions and makes it easier for demagogic politicians to mobilize the public on behalf of the policies they want to pursue." '

Another quote: "... journalist Adam Curtis argues that politicians have used our fears to increase their power and control over society."

NSA = No Structural Authority.

There are complicated problems in running ANY organization. Managing secret organizations sensibly is impossible. Each manager of a secret organization has an excuse to hide his or her mistakes. There can be no outside ideas to fix problems because no outsiders are allowed to know what is happening.

Backdoors:

The U.S. government allows secret government agencies to go to any executive in any company, make demands for "security", and threaten the executive with prison if he or she doesn't do what the secret agency wants. Is that the reason that U.S. computer equipment has backdoors? We are not allowed to know. Secret agencies are allowed to lie, so even if an agency says it didn't force a backdoor, no one can know if the statement is true.

What a great achievement for the Obama administration. Hopefully we won't piss it away with the coming wave of rising Islamophobia. I could imagine some politicians *cough*Trump*cough* reinstating the sanctions with the justification that their theocratic regime is inherently evil.On the other hand, the handling of the Iranian protests after the sketchy election isn't doing them any favors in that regard.The real question is, did the strikes against nuclear scientists, and sabotage of centrifuge SCADAs help

It won't matter if a Republican president takes this step. It will just mean more business for the EU, Russia, etc. No one outside the US takes this buffoon seriously, and Iran's demographics make the theocracy's grip on power increasingly tenuous. Wouldn't a future with good relations between US-Israel-Iran be so much better than one with the disgusting Saudi regime?

Too bad you're posting as an AC. I would have modded you up into the sky, not only for agreeing wholeheartedly, but also and especially for the (admittedly tiny) sound of common sense, a sound all to rarely heard here on/.

Solar panels are greedy and absorb up all the sun's power. When you don't allow the sun's rays to hit the earth and bounce back into space to refuel the sun, you're literally causing the sun to run out of energy faster.

7000GW of nuclear power is coming to Iran right now. Iran signed a deal with Rosatom, Busehr is going to have three more 1GW units and they are going to build four 1GW units to the coast of Caspian sea. It seems that "someone" noticed this, especially when you look through Google Earth. Busehr 2nd unit renovation started this autumn and suddenly there is a bi-monthly picture update on it.

However I am not saying that solar power is a flawed solution for Iran, on the contrary: Iran is also a good place for so

The agreement with Iran is about as polarizing a subject as any can be; our own nation is thoroughly divided on it, and Israel, one of the U.S.'s allies and bitter enemy of Iran, is very much violently opposed to it, to the point of perhaps being irrational in their response.

For myself, as I suspect it is for many others, I am internally divided on it, as I am both a cynic and hopeful at the same time.

On the one hand, continued hostilities towards Iran serves to maintain and promote tensions between Iran,

But at the same time that my cynicism reads the potential subtext, I'm hopeful that while Irans' secular leadership is (excuse the turn of phrase here) hell-bent on destroying Israel and the U.S. and (likely) our other allies and anything that doesn't fit into their limited, rigid world-view, it's non-secular leadership is more open-minded and far-thinking, realizing that the World of today has become too small and all Irans' neighbors too close, in the literal as well as figurative sense, to allow the lead

That's my opinion on the matter, yes. If it was 100% up to the religious leadership, they would never have even considered negotiating in the first place. Also, teaching schoolchildren to chant 'Death to America' has a certain influence on my opinions.

Perhaps, but enriched fuel is HARD to make. The technology is quite.. finicky and specialized and not available to you and me.

To enrich uranium to weapons grade requires centrifuges, a lot of them (because it's the only way to separate U-235 from U-238). Civil enrichment uses a few centrifuges to none (there are designs that don't need enriched fuel). But that's because they only need 5% U-235 to work. Weapons grade is 40% or higher (and bombs need almost pure - 90%+), which requires a stunningly large array of centrifuges at which point it's really hard to do and keep a secret underground - it's going to be a huge facility.

And let's not forget that the world IS watching and monitoring. You cannot detonate a nuclear bomb anywhere without it being detected by third parties. Underground? The earth is covered with seismographs recording everything from earthquakes to nuclear bombs. There are isotope detectors scattered around detecting the products of the nuclear reactions. And you can't do it out in the open because a lot of satellites carry detectors.

Plus, nevermind the intelligence capabilities of everyone - think of what it would take to design something like Stuxnet to only fire at the right target configured a certain way. Chances are, if there is such an underground facility, it's well known. You can't really hide such a facility - having to dig out lots of earth and then moving it places means it's captured on satellite photos and everything. And such a facility requires a lot of infrastructure and likely will generate quite a bit of heat, which shows up nicely on thermal cameras, again on satellites.

And if it really posed a threat, well, a "bomb" will be accidentally dropped on it. After all, it landed out there in the middle of the desert where there was nothing there.

Perhaps, but enriched fuel is HARD to make. The technology is quite.. finicky and specialized and not available to you and me.

Reminder that India became a nuclear power thanks to Canada, and them using "peaceful reactors" to produce nuclear weapons. The world was also watching when India decided to give a big-ol-fuck you as well.

Oh and I loved it so much! Little ol' India, unable to feed its populace, gave the middle finger to the West and exploded the nuke. How wonderful! Fricking Westerners, always full of knowledge and righteousness about everything! I remember a line from somewhere: My views may have changed but not the fact that I'm right!You know what's amazing? Despite being in one of the toughest neighborhoods around (Pakistan in the West, China in the East - both nuke powers), India's been ballsy enough to say "No first us

5 bullies get together and decide that they are the only folks in the world who are allowed to eat cheese - called it the NCT. Some others decided not to pay attention to the NCT, made their own cheese and had it. Poor NCT "signatories" all got their panties into a twist! Ooooh! I love that squeezed balls look they've got!

The Iranians will just buy what they need from N. Korea. They were already on that path before Israel took out the nuke plant in Syria a few years back. So in 10 years, their missile technology will have been perfected just in time to receive N. Korean warheads. And in the meantime, the Iranians will get back into the international economy to fund their foreign adventures. They are willing to fight for Syria to the last Arab.

Epic fail. Persians (i.e. Iranians) loathe Arabs and vice versa. The Middle East is complicated and the West isn't their only foe. Whilst they have common enemies, they don't get along with each other either.

This. Just to make the point even clearer, it takes a long, long time to go from ore to bomb grade uranium. The only way to speed up the process is to scale it up -- to have lots and lots of centrifuges working in parallel on lots and lots of uranium, like the US did in the Manhattan Project. Here [wikipedia.org] is what our plant looked like. You can also peruse aerial images Pakistan's enrichment facility [globalsecurity.org] to see what a more modern plant would look like. These are not small, readily concealable facilities.

Of course they do - don't you remember when the voices inside Bush's head led him to declare Iran, Iraq, and North Korea "The Axis of Evil"?

The nuclear-armed two of those didn't get attacked. Iran saved itself from colonization. The country might be controlled by a group of sociopathic assholes, but their strategy played out according to plan. The dispassionate math of it says that they fared better than Iraq did -- despite t

Yuo. I remember when this site was about some cool new mod for a window manager, now its just a feed of the usual 'news' crap you can get anywhere but on a 6 hour delay with a bunch of snark. I appreciate the snark but these days its just low hanging fruit. How the mighty have fallen...

There would have been no negotiations if not for the current administration. Or they would have fallen apart early on. And like North Korea, nothing would slow down Iran from getting nukes.

Why do you care if there was or was not negotiation? Iran will continue to develop their nukes, continue to export support for terrorists as they've been doing for decades, and will continue to pursue hegemony throughout the middle east... and now they'll have access to billions of dollars to make it easier for them. The negotiations were worthless. They didn't happen previously because everyone else recognized that the Iranians aren't honorable negotiating partners. Obama knows this too, but he was willi

It's going to be hard for them to develop nukes without the stuff they've mostly given up. Iran is not going to go after nukes for at least a while, which is a better position than we were in before the negotiation.

They've given up stuff important for building nukes. As far as we can tell, they aren't continuing a nuke program. I'm not at all fond of the Iranian government, but that's about the best we're going to get, and it's a lot better than nothing.

Exactly what were we supposed to do about Iran anyway? I don't want us to have to conquer another Middle East country and release all that mess yet again.

Right, because the IAEA wasn't allowed to establish a baseline for their stores of processed uranium, and the 100% lopsided agreement puts Iran in charge of inspecting and reporting on the remaining amount as they see fit, no IAEA inspections allowed. In other words there IS something we can tell: that Iran got exactly what it wanted: no inspections, and billions of dollars with which to continue their project.

Right. The US caused the communists to invade Vietnam and South Korea. The US caused Saddam to invade Kuwait.

Yes, dealing with people who start wars frequently involves the use of violence in order to stop them. Let me guess, you're planning to accompany that folk singer who says he's traveling to visit ISIS and sing them into changing their ways, right?

Surely Iran won't secretly develop nukes anyway with all the billions they get from the sanctions being lifted

If Iran really has the ability to secretly develop nukes, then sanctions really have no point. Consider Iran in comparison to North Korea; Iran has 3x the population and 30x the GDP. Iran generates 750,000 university graduates/year and has substantial industrial, technological and scientific capabilities. If Iran wants a nuke it can develop a nuke, and it'll be a lot better than North Korea's nuke, provided they can get the fuel.

It should also be noted that Iran and North Korea share one advantage in the p

The US planes may be better in many respects but with US domestic politics as unstable as it is...who knows if the US would let them buy the planes.However I would expect Iran Air to order a lot of spare parts for the 7 747 boeing planes it already owns and perhaps purchase additional boeing planes on the open market (there are plenty available).

On what grounds? From a technological point of view there is little to choose between Airbus and Boing planes of a similar generation and duty. Which one gets chosen depends on the financing deal offered and not much else.

Thats because on the whole compared to what is available from the rest of the world they're quite crap, especially in the fuel economy, power per litre and quality of materials used for interiors. Mitsubishi/Toyota make better pickup trucks, Land Rover and Toyota make better 4x4s, almost everyone else including European arms of US manufacturers like Ford and GM make better cars.

= = = Thats because on the whole compared to what is available from the rest of the world they're quite crap, especially in the fuel economy, power per litre and quality of materials used for interiors. = = =

The Chevy Malibu is a good example: the 2010 model was as good as any in its class and better for North American driving conditions than most of its European- and Japan-optimized competitors. I haven't seen the 2016 yet but early reviews are that is it substantially improved over the 2009-2011 type. There are many very good Big 2.5 designed and built models on the market that are competitive with anything (particularly in North America). Also some not-so-great models - which is also true of Mazda, Toyot

They used to be crap. Ford actually does make the best pickup trucks, and Ford and Chevy's newer sedans are actually pretty nice for what they cost. I still really like Hondas, but new American cars are actually pretty comparable to European and Japanese cars of similar prices.

Airbus airplanes have substantial content sourced from the United States. Likewise Boeing airplanes have content sourced from the EU, including from subsidiaries of Airbus. The prime and its preferred contractors obviously get the greatest benefit but the industry is one big bowl of international spaghetti.

Yes, Reagan said, "Trust, but verify." With this deal, Obama is saying, "I will take the word of a government that regularly proclaims 'Death to America', that they will stop working on a program that might allow them to actually bring death to America." Meanwhile, the Iranians have ALREADY violated part of the deal by continuing to work on improving their ballistic missiles.

Yes, I am aware that there are other countries involved in the deal...countries which have a history of entering into deals which are contrary to their interests because those deals enrich their decision-makers (key leaders of most of those other six countries were implicated in taking bribes under the "food-for-fuel" deal with Saddam Hussein).

I am also unsure why those other countries failing to verify that the Iranians are keeping their word makes it any less gullible of the U.S. to fail to verify it.